Treating acetaminophen overdose: thresholds, costs and uncertainties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) modified the indications for N-acetylcysteine therapy of acetaminophen (paracetamol) overdose in September 2012. The new treatment threshold line was lowered to 100 mg/L (662 μmol/L) for a 4 hours acetaminophen concentration from the previous 200 mg/L (1325 μmol/L). This decision has the potential to substantially increase overall costs associated with acetaminophen overdose with unclear benefits from a marginal increase in patients protected from hepatotoxicity, fulminant hepatic failure, death, or transplant. Changing the treatment threshold for acetaminophen overdose also implies that ingestion amounts previously thought not to require acetaminophen concentration measurements would need to be revised. As a result, more individuals will be sent to hospitals in order that everyone with a predicted 4 hours concentration above the 100 mg/L line will have concentrations measured and potentially be treated with N-acetylcysteine. Before others consider adopting this new treatment guideline, formal cost-effectiveness analyses need to be performed to define the appropriate thresholds for referral and treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".